And the first mother-to-daughter ones, at that:
Swedish doctors claim pioneering uterus transplant - Post Bulletin
Seems like an awful lot to go through to me for the women, and a
lot of expense to boot.
Uterus transplants?
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Uterus transplants?
It's progress. If they pioneer transplant Fallopian tubes and Ovaries, childless couples will benefit.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Uterus transplants?
^ Agreed, but that's sort of like being selfish don't you think?
I mean, loads of adoptable children everywhere. And if you
aren't going to get a genetic blend of the two of you anyway
with different ovaries, then why?
I mean, loads of adoptable children everywhere. And if you
aren't going to get a genetic blend of the two of you anyway
with different ovaries, then why?
Uterus transplants?
valerie;1404833 wrote: ^ Agreed, but that's sort of like being selfish don't you think?
I mean, loads of adoptable children everywhere. And if you
aren't going to get a genetic blend of the two of you anyway
with different ovaries, then why?
The article suggests that they would use eggs from the women's own ovaries when the time came.
I would worry that the gloop that they use to suppress rejection would prevent implantation and render them infertile.
As they say themselves, it will not be a success until a healthy baby is born.
I mean, loads of adoptable children everywhere. And if you
aren't going to get a genetic blend of the two of you anyway
with different ovaries, then why?
The article suggests that they would use eggs from the women's own ovaries when the time came.
I would worry that the gloop that they use to suppress rejection would prevent implantation and render them infertile.
As they say themselves, it will not be a success until a healthy baby is born.
Uterus transplants?
Yeah, I saw that in this case, but I was thinking of Oscar's future possibility
of transplanting tubes and ovaries.
of transplanting tubes and ovaries.
Uterus transplants?
valerie;1404838 wrote: Yeah, I saw that in this case, but I was thinking of Oscar's future possibility
of transplanting tubes and ovaries.
Fairy Snuff
of transplanting tubes and ovaries.
Fairy Snuff
-
fuzzywuzzy
- Posts: 6596
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm
Uterus transplants?
I've always been afraid of this ... it's one thing to harvest a kidney ..it's quite another to harvest the reproductive organs of a woman.
History has shown us how many women around the world have been held down whilst things were done to them in this area .....now we're one step closer to complete annialation.
This procedure will never be offered to poor women but you can bet your bottom dollar where the uteruses will come from .
History has shown us how many women around the world have been held down whilst things were done to them in this area .....now we're one step closer to complete annialation.
This procedure will never be offered to poor women but you can bet your bottom dollar where the uteruses will come from .
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Uterus transplants?
Sorry but that's a hysterical reaction...
The same sort of reaction when IVF was first pioneered.
Surgeons are not going to raiding women of their uterus's In third world countries to meet demand... they don't hold women down and forcibly take their kidneys so why Uterus's ?
You can not just take tissue and organs from one human and put them In another without rejection by the body... It's still difficult enough to transplant a kidney through exact tissue type...
It's pioneering surgery and most likely the first stage Into transplanting ovaries and fallopian tubes which I'm sure Is a long way off yet... IVF treatment doesn't see surgeons holding women down and robbing them of their eggs so going out and exploiting women for their uterus Is just not going to happen. Should this surgery help childless couples It will be no different to IVF where most have to pay privately for treatment with willing donors such as artificial Insemenation and egg donors..
The same sort of reaction when IVF was first pioneered.
Surgeons are not going to raiding women of their uterus's In third world countries to meet demand... they don't hold women down and forcibly take their kidneys so why Uterus's ?
You can not just take tissue and organs from one human and put them In another without rejection by the body... It's still difficult enough to transplant a kidney through exact tissue type...
It's pioneering surgery and most likely the first stage Into transplanting ovaries and fallopian tubes which I'm sure Is a long way off yet... IVF treatment doesn't see surgeons holding women down and robbing them of their eggs so going out and exploiting women for their uterus Is just not going to happen. Should this surgery help childless couples It will be no different to IVF where most have to pay privately for treatment with willing donors such as artificial Insemenation and egg donors..
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Uterus transplants?
Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you have to.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Uterus transplants?
Bruv;1404973 wrote: Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you have to.
And I'm sure someone, somewhere said exactly that when heart and lung transplants were first pioneered.
So you are quite happy for your life to be saved by a donor heart or kidney should you need It but childless couples should just put up or shut up because using a uterus would be wrong In some way ????
And I'm sure someone, somewhere said exactly that when heart and lung transplants were first pioneered.
So you are quite happy for your life to be saved by a donor heart or kidney should you need It but childless couples should just put up or shut up because using a uterus would be wrong In some way ????
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Uterus transplants?
In a nutshell yes..................I think.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Uterus transplants?
Bruv;1404980 wrote: In a nutshell yes..................I think.
And do you not think that's a selfish attitude to have?
And do you not think that's a selfish attitude to have?
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Uterus transplants?
I think what it comes down to for me, really, is that there are options
other than a uterus transplant... surrogacy, for example. Then, you
could potentially have your DNA if you wanted. A woman who just
wants to carry a pregnancy is the one who is being selfish to my way
of thinking. Towards her unborn child, too. All those anti-rejection
drugs going into a fetus?
other than a uterus transplant... surrogacy, for example. Then, you
could potentially have your DNA if you wanted. A woman who just
wants to carry a pregnancy is the one who is being selfish to my way
of thinking. Towards her unborn child, too. All those anti-rejection
drugs going into a fetus?
Uterus transplants?
oscar;1404978 wrote: And I'm sure someone, somewhere said exactly that when heart and lung transplants were first pioneered.
So you are quite happy for your life to be saved by a donor heart or kidney should you need It but childless couples should just put up or shut up because using a uterus would be wrong In some way ????
I think there's a big difference between an organ transplant to save or to improve one's quality of life, and the transplanting of a uterus.
So you are quite happy for your life to be saved by a donor heart or kidney should you need It but childless couples should just put up or shut up because using a uterus would be wrong In some way ????
I think there's a big difference between an organ transplant to save or to improve one's quality of life, and the transplanting of a uterus.
Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answers...Rainer Maria Rilke
Uterus transplants?
oscar;1404982 wrote: And do you not think that's a selfish attitude to have?
Not really.
I have the highest respect for life, and those who strive to save it.
I am all for total commitment in saving the living, but find it difficult to support those who attempt to create or assist to create new life against the odds.
We are clever enough to sustain the function of the body long after it has stopped being alive, that is the same to me as aggressively making a body bear a child when nature has failed.
Not really.
I have the highest respect for life, and those who strive to save it.
I am all for total commitment in saving the living, but find it difficult to support those who attempt to create or assist to create new life against the odds.
We are clever enough to sustain the function of the body long after it has stopped being alive, that is the same to me as aggressively making a body bear a child when nature has failed.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Uterus transplants?
theia;1404988 wrote: I think there's a big difference between an organ transplant to save or to improve one's quality of life, and the transplanting of a uterus.
So, do you think all other body parts harvested after death except organs for transplant to actually save lives, should be abolished?
[moderator note]following quote stolen from http://www.ehow.com/facts_6809621_many- ... ving_.html[/moderator note]
Certain tissues are also donated from the deceased, Including corneas, the middle ear, skin, heart valves, bones, veins, cartilage, tendons and ligaments. These tissues can be stored In banks and used to restore sight, cover burns and repair hearts..... which Is not life saving.
Or are you happy with tissue being harvested to enhance life?
So, do you think all other body parts harvested after death except organs for transplant to actually save lives, should be abolished?
[moderator note]following quote stolen from http://www.ehow.com/facts_6809621_many- ... ving_.html[/moderator note]
Certain tissues are also donated from the deceased, Including corneas, the middle ear, skin, heart valves, bones, veins, cartilage, tendons and ligaments. These tissues can be stored In banks and used to restore sight, cover burns and repair hearts..... which Is not life saving.
Or are you happy with tissue being harvested to enhance life?
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Uterus transplants?
oscar;1404997 wrote: So, do you think all other body parts harvested after death except organs for transplant to actually save lives, should be abolished?
Certain tissues are also donated from the deceased, Including corneas, the middle ear, skin, heart valves, bones, veins, cartilage, tendons and ligaments. These tissues can be stored In banks and used to restore sight, cover burns and repair hearts..... which Is not life saving.
Or are you happy with tissue being harvested to enhance life?
Sorry, Oscar, how does your post relate to what I posted? You've lost me. Perhaps you could explain more? Thanks
Certain tissues are also donated from the deceased, Including corneas, the middle ear, skin, heart valves, bones, veins, cartilage, tendons and ligaments. These tissues can be stored In banks and used to restore sight, cover burns and repair hearts..... which Is not life saving.
Or are you happy with tissue being harvested to enhance life?
Sorry, Oscar, how does your post relate to what I posted? You've lost me. Perhaps you could explain more? Thanks
Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answers...Rainer Maria Rilke
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Uterus transplants?
theia;1405000 wrote: Sorry, Oscar, how does your post relate to what I posted? You've lost me. Perhaps you could explain more? Thanks
Put It this way.... If Tissue Is used on a burns victim to Improve their appearance and that gives them a better quality of life, then do you not think that the quality of life could be Improved for a couple desperate to have a child of their own? Or Is that just a whim on their part?
Put It this way.... If Tissue Is used on a burns victim to Improve their appearance and that gives them a better quality of life, then do you not think that the quality of life could be Improved for a couple desperate to have a child of their own? Or Is that just a whim on their part?
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Uterus transplants?
Bruv;1404996 wrote: Not really.
I have the highest respect for life, and those who strive to save it.
I am all for total commitment in saving the living, but find it difficult to support those who attempt to create or assist to create new life against the odds.
We are clever enough to sustain the function of the body long after it has stopped being alive, that is the same to me as aggressively making a body bear a child when nature has failed. But you're happy to harvest cornea's from the dead to revive failing eyesight when nature begins to fail ?????
I have the highest respect for life, and those who strive to save it.
I am all for total commitment in saving the living, but find it difficult to support those who attempt to create or assist to create new life against the odds.
We are clever enough to sustain the function of the body long after it has stopped being alive, that is the same to me as aggressively making a body bear a child when nature has failed. But you're happy to harvest cornea's from the dead to revive failing eyesight when nature begins to fail ?????
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Uterus transplants?
oscar;1405001 wrote: Put It this way.... If Tissue Is used on a burns victim to Improve their appearance and that gives them a better quality of life, then do you not think that the quality of life could be Improved for a couple desperate to have a child of their own? Or Is that just a whim on their part?
It must be awful for a couple not to be able to have a child.
But I think it's more important to use tissue etc to save/improve an existing person's quality of life than to take measures to introduce a new life in this way. And in the UK the NHS already has enough financial problems trying to cope with illness and the increasing elderly population.
It must be awful for a couple not to be able to have a child.
But I think it's more important to use tissue etc to save/improve an existing person's quality of life than to take measures to introduce a new life in this way. And in the UK the NHS already has enough financial problems trying to cope with illness and the increasing elderly population.
Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answers...Rainer Maria Rilke
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Uterus transplants?
theia;1405006 wrote: It must be awful for a couple not to be able to have a child.
But I think it's more important to use tissue etc to save/improve an existing person's quality of life than to take measures to introduce a new life in this way. And in the UK the NHS already has enough financial problems trying to cope with illness and the increasing elderly population.
So we're basically saying we'll patch up anyone when mother nature takes It's toll, ie cornea transplants In failing eyesight, we'll carry out nose jobs, tattoo removal, hair folicle transplants , breast enlargements etc etc on the NHS, all free of charge... In fact we'll even give a liver transplant to the feckless who have drank their way to liver failure on the NHS but woe betide any poor sod who can't carry her own baby due to endometriosis ?
eta... If we look at how many couples get free IVF treatment on the NHS, It Is actually very few.... see link
http://www.womenrepublic.co.uk/family_p ... y/free.htm
So, no, we are not wasting millions on free treatment... many area's don't even offer free IVF and couples are forced to pay privately which Is around £4,000 per treatment.... If Uterus transplants became common place, I am quite sure the same would apply as does IVF treatment ie, they would have to fund It themselves..... yet, look at the millions the NHS wastes on cosmetic surgery
What a materialistic, selfish planet this has become.
But I think it's more important to use tissue etc to save/improve an existing person's quality of life than to take measures to introduce a new life in this way. And in the UK the NHS already has enough financial problems trying to cope with illness and the increasing elderly population.
So we're basically saying we'll patch up anyone when mother nature takes It's toll, ie cornea transplants In failing eyesight, we'll carry out nose jobs, tattoo removal, hair folicle transplants , breast enlargements etc etc on the NHS, all free of charge... In fact we'll even give a liver transplant to the feckless who have drank their way to liver failure on the NHS but woe betide any poor sod who can't carry her own baby due to endometriosis ?
eta... If we look at how many couples get free IVF treatment on the NHS, It Is actually very few.... see link
http://www.womenrepublic.co.uk/family_p ... y/free.htm
So, no, we are not wasting millions on free treatment... many area's don't even offer free IVF and couples are forced to pay privately which Is around £4,000 per treatment.... If Uterus transplants became common place, I am quite sure the same would apply as does IVF treatment ie, they would have to fund It themselves..... yet, look at the millions the NHS wastes on cosmetic surgery
What a materialistic, selfish planet this has become.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Uterus transplants?
oscar;1405002 wrote: But you're happy to harvest cornea's from the dead to revive failing eyesight when nature begins to fail ?????
Yes, and yes to all the other organ donations to improve a life that is currently struggling.
I am in a grey area about any surgical 'remedy' or medical intrusion to cosmetically enhance or improve a life also......such as breast enhancement, or gender reassignment.
Yes, and yes to all the other organ donations to improve a life that is currently struggling.
I am in a grey area about any surgical 'remedy' or medical intrusion to cosmetically enhance or improve a life also......such as breast enhancement, or gender reassignment.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
-
fuzzywuzzy
- Posts: 6596
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm
Uterus transplants?
oscar;1404958 wrote: Sorry but that's a hysterical reaction...
The same sort of reaction when IVF was first pioneered.
Surgeons are not going to raiding women of their uterus's In third world countries to meet demand... they don't hold women down and forcibly take their kidneys so why Uterus's ?
You can not just take tissue and organs from one human and put them In another without rejection by the body... It's still difficult enough to transplant a kidney through exact tissue type...
It's pioneering surgery and most likely the first stage Into transplanting ovaries and fallopian tubes which I'm sure Is a long way off yet... IVF treatment doesn't see surgeons holding women down and robbing them of their eggs so going out and exploiting women for their uterus Is just not going to happen. Should this surgery help childless couples It will be no different to IVF where most have to pay privately for treatment with willing donors such as artificial Insemenation and egg donors..
So what you're saying is transplant organs have never been exploited?
The same sort of reaction when IVF was first pioneered.
Surgeons are not going to raiding women of their uterus's In third world countries to meet demand... they don't hold women down and forcibly take their kidneys so why Uterus's ?
You can not just take tissue and organs from one human and put them In another without rejection by the body... It's still difficult enough to transplant a kidney through exact tissue type...
It's pioneering surgery and most likely the first stage Into transplanting ovaries and fallopian tubes which I'm sure Is a long way off yet... IVF treatment doesn't see surgeons holding women down and robbing them of their eggs so going out and exploiting women for their uterus Is just not going to happen. Should this surgery help childless couples It will be no different to IVF where most have to pay privately for treatment with willing donors such as artificial Insemenation and egg donors..
So what you're saying is transplant organs have never been exploited?
Uterus transplants?
oscar;1405009 wrote: So we're basically saying we'll patch up anyone when mother nature takes It's toll, ie cornea transplants In failing eyesight, we'll carry out nose jobs, tattoo removal, hair folicle transplants , breast enlargements etc etc on the NHS, all free of charge... In fact we'll even give a liver transplant to the feckless who have drank their way to liver failure on the NHS but woe betide any poor sod who can't carry her own baby due to endometriosis ?
eta... If we look at how many couples get free IVF treatment on the NHS, It Is actually very few.... see link
Free IVF treatment in the UK
So, no, we are not wasting millions on free treatment... many area's don't even offer free IVF and couples are forced to pay privately which Is around £4,000 per treatment.... If Uterus transplants became common place, I am quite sure the same would apply as does IVF treatment ie, they would have to fund It themselves..... yet, look at the millions the NHS wastes on cosmetic surgery
What a materialistic, selfish planet this has become.
The NHS is there to treat illness, surely that's its basic premise?
"When mother nature takes its toll" - if it didn't there would no reason to treat the elderly. Oscar, you've listed too many varied treatments together, some of which are not "mother nature taking its toll."
Why are alcoholics "feckless?"
eta... If we look at how many couples get free IVF treatment on the NHS, It Is actually very few.... see link
Free IVF treatment in the UK
So, no, we are not wasting millions on free treatment... many area's don't even offer free IVF and couples are forced to pay privately which Is around £4,000 per treatment.... If Uterus transplants became common place, I am quite sure the same would apply as does IVF treatment ie, they would have to fund It themselves..... yet, look at the millions the NHS wastes on cosmetic surgery
What a materialistic, selfish planet this has become.
The NHS is there to treat illness, surely that's its basic premise?
"When mother nature takes its toll" - if it didn't there would no reason to treat the elderly. Oscar, you've listed too many varied treatments together, some of which are not "mother nature taking its toll."
Why are alcoholics "feckless?"
Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answers...Rainer Maria Rilke
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Uterus transplants?
theia;1405022 wrote: The NHS is there to treat illness, surely that's its basic premise?
"When mother nature takes its toll" - if it didn't there would no reason to treat the elderly. Oscar, you've listed too many varied treatments together, some of which are not "mother nature taking its toll."
Why are alcoholics "feckless?"
I gave a link to IVF treatment because you mentioned that the NHS was burdened enough.... and the point was, the NHS Is not burdened with treatment to create new life as with IVF.... very few get It free and Uterus transplants would, I'm sure be no different.
Whilst I am aware that alcoholism Is a disease, there Is treatment on the NHS.... some choose to not accept It... that Is a choice.... women who have had to have their uterus's removed do not do It out of choice.... the basic Instinct of any species Is to reproduce...
Just as the NHS seeks to preserve life, ethics should Include the creation of new life...
It Is simply unethical to say to any couple unable to have a child 'oh well, that's your hard luck'..
Diseases are physical or mental conditions of an organism that result In deviations from normal species function. Any textbook dealing with human biology or physiology will discuss the seven organ systems of the human body. These include the circulatory system, the respiratory system, the musculoskeletal system, the digestive system, The urinary system, the neurologic system and the reproductive system. All seven systems are required for the normal functioning of the human. Since reproduction is one of these systems, any abnormality If the functioning of the reproductive system would constitute a disease.
http://www.ivf1.com/disease-infertility/
"When mother nature takes its toll" - if it didn't there would no reason to treat the elderly. Oscar, you've listed too many varied treatments together, some of which are not "mother nature taking its toll."
Why are alcoholics "feckless?"
I gave a link to IVF treatment because you mentioned that the NHS was burdened enough.... and the point was, the NHS Is not burdened with treatment to create new life as with IVF.... very few get It free and Uterus transplants would, I'm sure be no different.
Whilst I am aware that alcoholism Is a disease, there Is treatment on the NHS.... some choose to not accept It... that Is a choice.... women who have had to have their uterus's removed do not do It out of choice.... the basic Instinct of any species Is to reproduce...
Just as the NHS seeks to preserve life, ethics should Include the creation of new life...
It Is simply unethical to say to any couple unable to have a child 'oh well, that's your hard luck'..
Diseases are physical or mental conditions of an organism that result In deviations from normal species function. Any textbook dealing with human biology or physiology will discuss the seven organ systems of the human body. These include the circulatory system, the respiratory system, the musculoskeletal system, the digestive system, The urinary system, the neurologic system and the reproductive system. All seven systems are required for the normal functioning of the human. Since reproduction is one of these systems, any abnormality If the functioning of the reproductive system would constitute a disease.
http://www.ivf1.com/disease-infertility/
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Uterus transplants?
I really see no issue with this, as long as each individual taking part in the procedure knows the alternatives and potential dangers then its fine, theres not really that much to contemplate.